SAGHIR AHMED KHAN vs MEHAR AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD.

CASE of the complainant: The complainant, Saghir Ahmed Khan of Sultanpur purchased a Mahendra Tractor 269 DD 1999 Model for agricultural purpose from M/s. Mehar Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Sultanpur on 30.6.1999 after obtaining a loan from the Kshetriya Gramin Bank. M/s. Mehar Automobiles with mala fide intention handed over the tractor 265 D I Model without any documentation to the complainant. The driver of the complainant while taking the tractor to his house found some fault in running of the tractor and in taking load by the engine. When the complainant brought this to the notice of the O.P. No. 2, Mehar Automobiles the O.P. No. 2 got the engine and the pump of the tractor inspected by their technical staff and they assured that the fault will be cured once the engine is set, but the fault was not cured and he made further complaint. The guarantee period of the engine is 2000 hours and the tractor was running in defective condition for 1400 hours. Hence, he filed the complaint before the District Forum and prayed for direction to O.P. No. 2 to replace the tractor in question with a new tractor of the same model in good working condition and pay damage of Rs. 95,000 caused due to loss of income with interest at 18% per annum and a sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation. The O.P. No. 2 filed a reply denying the averments made in the complaint stating that repair work was carried out by their engineers. He also stated that the pump and some parts of the tractor were manufactured by Mico Company which had a warranty of 1000 hours or for a period of one year and they have also stated that when the company gave free service to the complainant, he was advised not to disturb the FIP and neither increase or decrease the supply of oil in FIP. He was also further directed to get the tractor repaired at the authorised workshop only. Every time the complainant brought the tractor it was repaired and the complainant affixed his signature(s) on the job card expressing his satisfaction.

THE District Forum came to the conclusion that the tractor purchased by the complainant from O.P. No. 2 was defective from the beginning and complaint in this regard had been made by complainant with O.P. No. 2 within the period of warranty and the same had not been cured and tractor was not handed over in proper condition nor a new tractor was given. Complainant was given the defective tractor two months prior to the date of real sale without any security by the O.P. No. 2. This action of the O.P. No. 2 comes within the purview of definition of illegal trade practice, which clearly proves the deficiency in service of O.P. No. 2. Accordingly the District Forum ordered as follows: Complaint is allowed against the O.P. No. 2. O.P. No. 2 is hereby directed to take back the tractor in dispute from the complainant within two months and give a new tractor of same model and condition to the complainant. If it is not possible then pay the principal amount of the disputed tractor along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of sale i.e., 30.6.1999 till the date of actual payment. Apart from this also pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 towards compensation and Rs. 200 towards cost of complaint is rejected against the O.P. Nos. 1 and 3.

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum Mehar Automobiles filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. The State Commission after hearing the parties and going through the documents held that there was certainly a defect in the pump which required to be repaired time and again. Therefore, statement of the complainant is proved that finally on 11.4.2000, when asked to repair the pump, the pump was not repaired and the tractor is standing in non-running condition. To this extent the order of the District Forum is proper and, therefore, it would have been proper to direct only change/replacement of the pump. However, the State Commission held that rest of the order of the District Forum quoted below is not proper and justified: On receipt of the tractor in dispute, replace the same with a new tractor of same make and model. If it is not possible, then pay the principal amount of the disputed tractor along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of sale i.e., 30.6.1999 till the date of actual payment.

THEREFORE, aforesaid order was set aside and in place the following order was passed by the State Commission: If the complainant brings the said tractor within one month at the shop of the appellant, the appellant within one month, would replace the old pump with a new pump and shall hand over the tractor to the complainant in good and proper running condition. After considering the complete facts, the appeal is partly allowed and a sum of Rs. 5,000 has to be paid to the complainant by the appellant within one month from today. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that the tractor had a warranty of 2000 hours and the defects were noticed as early as 10.5.1999. Possession of the tractor was taken on 31.3.1999 by the complainant from the dealer on part payment and full payment was made on 30.6.1999 and the defects were noticed even on 10.5.1999, apart from fuel injection pump the whole engine was defective, hence the tractor is to be replaced with cost and compensation. On the other hand, learned Counsel of the respondent submitted that Myth Associates Pvt. Ltd., Sultanpur 20.5.2004 when the tractor was given for repairs after the tractor ran for 3409 hours, the driver had signed the certificate stating that he had driven the tractor after repair and he was completely satisfied and had taken the delivery accordingly. In this connection it is relevant to look into the order of this Commission dated 15.9.2004 which reads as follows: Heard the parties Counsel. It has been pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that the order passed by the State Commission has been complied with by paying the amount in February and replacing the pump of the tractor with a new pump on 20.5.2004. On this basis nothing survives in this revision. The revision petition was filed on 24.1.2004. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks time to file amended revision petition incorporating the subsequent events. It would be appropriate if the tractor is produced before MICO''s authorised dealer M/s. Gautam Auto Sales, Faizabad (UP) for giving a comprehensive and clear report indicating whether the tractor is suffering from any manufacturing defect particularly in view of the last report indicating that the vehicle should be checked to locate the defect. We are ready to give any other help for defective location. The petitioner may take the tractor on 1.10.2004.

IN response to this, M/s. Gautam Auto Sales addressed a letter to M/s. Mehar Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Sultanpur dated 1.10.2004 which reads as under: Your representative Mr. H.D. Singh (Manager) visited our workshop at 10.00 a.m. dated 1.10.2004 and remained here upto 05.00 p.m. in the evening along with Director Shri Baldev Singh - Have shown us a copy of letter sent by your Advocate Naveen Grover, where it is stated that Shri Saghir Ahmed or his representative would be coming at our workshop today for appraisal of working of tractor No. NH 27946 Model 265 D 1 UP 44B/7342 as per direction of Honourable National State Commission passed on 15.9.2004 at Delhi. - It is now 5.00 p.m. in the evening and no body have come to our workshop with above said tractor and we are left with no other option but to discharge your representation, since without tractor no appraisal can be done and we are issuing this letter to M/s. Mehar Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., to their request since they want some documents for their presence at our workshop as per direction of Hon''ble Commission. - We are ready to give any other letter also if required to be filed before the Hon''ble National State Commission to this effect.

Further letter dated 28.10.2004 from Gautam Auto Sales which reads as follows: Shri Saghir Ahmed Khan visited us along with his M & M Tractor in running condition on date 28.10.2004 at 2.00 p.m. Regarding our last statement to locate the defect in our letter dated 11.4.2000, we humbly stated as under: All the time we checked the fuel injection pump it was neither worned nor damaged but only disturbed. So the pump was working all right. Regarding other defects, i.e., related other than pump, we are unable to find. M/s. Gautam Auto Sales are the authorised dealers to service the MICO Fuel Pump and it is also relevant to note that no complaint in the tractor was made by the petitioner till the fourth service and first complaint was made on 10.7.1999 after running the aforesaid tractor for 711 hours which was corrected even though it was found that the fuel injection pump was tampered and mishandled and the delivery of fuel was increased. The petitioner was advised not to disturb the delivery of the fuel henceforth.

ACCORDINGLY, we do not find any merit in this revision petition, as the order passed by the State Commission does not suffer from jurisdictional error or legal infirmity under Section 21(b) of the . The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.